How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons

Quantitative information can appear in different units (e.g., 7-year warranty = 84-month warranty). This article demonstrates that attribute differences appear larger on scales with a higher number of units; expressing quality information on such an expanded scale makes consumers switch to a higher-quality option. Testifying to its practical importance, expressing the energy content of snacks in kilojoules rather than kilocalories increases the choice of a healthy snack. The unit effect occurs because consumers focus on the number rather than the type of units in which information is expressed (numerosity effect). Therefore, reminding consumers of alternative units in which information can be expressed eliminates the unit effect. Finally, the unit effect moderates relative thinking: consumers are more sensitive to relative attribute differences when the attribute is expressed on expanded scales. The relation with anchoring and implications for temporal discounting and loyalty programs are discussed.

[1]  I. Erev,et al.  On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk: Six Clarifications , 2007, Judgment and Decision Making.

[2]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. , 1998 .

[3]  R. Bagchi,et al.  Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs: Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity , 2011 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[5]  A. Parducci Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[6]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming , 2008, Cognition.

[7]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Judgment in a Social Context: Biases, Shortcomings, and the Logic of Conversation , 1994 .

[8]  Ritesh Saini,et al.  The psychological underpinnings of relative thinking in price comparisons , 2010 .

[9]  Preferences Scientific Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. , 1982 .

[10]  Ellen E. Furlong,et al.  Cognitive Constraints on How Economic Rewards Affect Cooperation , 2009, Psychological science.

[11]  Kimihiko Yamagishi When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[13]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain , 1998, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[15]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Kin Fai Ellick Wong,et al.  Is 7300 m Equal to 7.3 km? Same Semantics but Different Anchoring Effects. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[17]  Ana Sofia Morais,et al.  Developing intuition for prices in euros: rescaling or relearning prices? , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[18]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other , 2009, Psychological science.

[19]  S Epstein,et al.  Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: further evidence for two conceptual systems. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making , 2010 .

[21]  D. Ariely,et al.  “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences , 2003 .

[22]  L. Myaskovsky,et al.  The Easy Path From Many To Much: the Numerosity Heuristic , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  Miranda R. Goode,et al.  The Psychological Consequences of Money , 2006, Science.

[24]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Specification Seeking: How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preference , 2008 .

[25]  D. Mackinnon Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis , 2008 .

[26]  Kin Fai Ellick Wong,et al.  The role of ratio differences in the framing of numerical information , 2006 .

[27]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Incidental environmental anchors , 2008 .

[28]  E. Miller,et al.  Coding of Cognitive Magnitude Compressed Scaling of Numerical Information in the Primate Prefrontal Cortex , 2003, Neuron.

[29]  P. Raghubir,et al.  Is 1/10 > 10/100? The effect of denominator salience on perceptions of base rates of health risk , 2008 .

[30]  Joydeep Srivastava,et al.  The Denomination Effect , 2009 .

[31]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Medium Maximization , 2003 .

[32]  D. Soman,et al.  Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect , 2005 .

[33]  Peeter W. J. Verlegh,et al.  Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance , 2002 .

[34]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[35]  Joydeep Srivastava,et al.  Effect of Face Value on Product Valuation in Foreign Currencies , 2002 .

[36]  S. Epstein,et al.  Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[38]  Daniel Read,et al.  Four Score and Seven Years from Now: The Date/Delay Effect in Temporal Discounting , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[39]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[40]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring , 2008 .

[41]  P. Wakker,et al.  Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically , 2007 .

[42]  Mario Pandelaere,et al.  Are All Units Created Equal? The Effect of Default Units on Product Evaluations , 2013 .

[43]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[44]  T. Mussweiler,et al.  Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction , 2003 .

[45]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty , 1982 .

[46]  I. Simonson,et al.  The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic: Effort Advantage as a Determinant of Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs , 2003 .

[47]  Tobias Greitemeyer,et al.  Psychological effects of the Euro - Experimental research on the perception of salaries and price estimations , 2002 .

[48]  Charlotte Gaston-Breton The impact of the euro on the consumer decision process: theoretical explanation and empirical evidence , 2006 .

[49]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[50]  Amitava Chattopadhyay,et al.  On the Perceived Value of Money: The Reference Dependence of Currency Numerosity Effects , 2007 .